Looking back at the BOE chairman saga

Paul Schott

Updated 10:07 pm, Saturday, December 14, 2013

After three weeks, the Board of Education has finally completed the first assignment of its 2013-14 syllabus --it elected a new chairman.

Republican Barbara O'Neill's victory came after four meetings in which the chairmanship was on the agenda, exceeding the two meetings needed in 2011 to elect Democrat Leslie Moriarty as chairman. "People were frustrated with us and couldn't understand why we couldn't vote and get a chair," O'Neill said. "It was just time to move on. We couldn't drag it on any longer."

O'Neill's win settled a difficult issue that dominated the board's recent agenda. It followed weeks of impassioned board discussions and keen public interest in who would assume the top post. The selection process also revealed members' goals and priorities and may offer hints to how they interact in the future.

After Election Day, board members turned their attention toward the Nov. 21 election of officers. That meeting also marked the first with new members, Democrats Debbie Appelbaum and Laura Erickson and Republican Peter Bernstein, who were each elected in November.

O'Neill's candidacy for chairman came as no surprise. She had served two years as vice chairman, was the top school board vote-getter in 2011.

Many also expected Peter Sherr's bid. The Republican, the top school board vote-getter last month, returned its only two-term member.

But Adriana Ospina's entrance into the chairmanship race surprised a number of school board observers. The Democrat served as board secretary since her election in 2011. Compared to O'Neill and Sherr, however, her polling numbers were more modest. She garnered about 6,100 votes in 2011, fourth-most among board candidates that year.

Just before Nov. 21, O'Neill decided not to be nominated for chairman. She did so after Ospina declared her candidacy, which O'Neill cited as a factor in her decision. She later said she suspended her bid to "stand with my party" to ensure all board Republicans rallied behind one GOP candidate.

The first match-up between Sherr and Ospina resulted in a 4-4 draw along party lines.

O'Neill's decision changed the dynamics of the chairmanship competition, making it less likely that a Republican would support a Democrat, Ospina said.

"When I declared my candidacy, I thought I was going into a 4-2-2 situation. I don't think any of us imagined that Barbara and Peter Bernstein would vote for Peter Sherr. With a 4-4 deadlock, I knew that was going to make things more difficult. I knew there would be a lot of pressure on Republican board members not to divide the party," she said

POSSIBLE SCENARIOS

After Nov. 21, Sherr and Ospina began discussing a leadership framework that would have included one of them as chairman and the other as vice chairman.

"Peter and I talked about working together with me as chair and him as vice chair," Ospina said. "I had the full support of the four Democrats. Peter wanted to be given a chance for a leadership position and the Democrats were willing to consider doing that. The issue from the beginning was how to get one Republican to vote for me. We spoke to all four of them and asked for their votes and the answer was always `We can't cross party lines.' No one ever said `You won't be able to lead the board effectively.' "

During that time, Ospina said she had "many" conversations with Republican member Peter von Braun "where I was sure he was going to vote for me." In hindsight, she said she underestimated what she described as the "involvement of party leaders to pressure him not to cross party lines."

But von Braun predicted a low probability of a Republican member breaking ranks.

"We would be thrown into the quicksand, and rocks would be thrown on our heads," he has said, referring to a Republican voting for Ospina.

Sherr, meanwhile, continued his chairmanship campaign, interpreting his re-election as a voter mandate for change.

"They sent a very clear signal about what they wanted," he said. "We've always run the board the same way. People are not satisfied with the performance of their schools, and they're not satisfied with the continuation of the strategies and governance that have been leading their schools. By electing me and Laura Erickson, they were signaling that they wanted a different direction. We talked about more of a co-chair model -- that was what the public was looking for. They were looking for collaboration. The only sticking point was who would actually have the title of chairman."

On Nov. 26, board members their vote to Dec. 5. That meeting produced more stalemate. Members voted twice on the chairmanship, each time producing a 4-4 draw along party lines. The next vote was set for Dec. 12.

With each knotted vote, the chances grew that the board would miss its 30-day deadline to reach a chairmanship decision and its leadership would then be decided by the Board of Selectmen. Earlier this week, First Selectman Peter Tesei and Selectman David Theis, both Republicans, expressed strong support for Sherr, while Democratic Selectman Drew Marzullo announced his backing for Ospina.

By then, non-board members were increasingly trying to influence the chairmanship vote, Sherr said.

"I made clear to my fellow Republicans that I was working hard to gain the support of Democrats," he said. "Adriana and I were in agreement that she and I would make a very effective team to lead the board going forward. It's unfortunate that our efforts were complicated by the behind-the-scenes efforts of former board chairs, ex-board members and former PTA Council presidents."

Marianna Ponns Cohen, a Republican who served on the school board from 2007 to 2011, took a similar view. She described a meddling role by "establishment" leaders of the town's two main political parties.

"It was a game of political chess," she said in an email. "Mr. Tesei's highly unusual public statement in support of Peter Sherr triggered the end result of Democrats coalescing around an O'Neill chairmanship to foreclose a possible Sherr chairmanship.

Tesei rejected Ponns Cohen's argument.

"As for Mrs. Cohen's comments, she has earned a spot as one of Greenwich's leading political prognosticators," he said. "Her speculations are just that speculation. I stand by my actions to support Mr. Sherr, and other elected officials must stand by their actions."

Board members, meanwhile, were frustrated with the impasse and worried about the growing probability of the selectmen's involvement.

"That would be terribly embarrassing to say that eight adults couldn't solve their own problem," O'Neill said. "I don't think Peter Tesei wanted to be put in that position. We were determined to settle it for ourselves."

DEADLOCK BROKEN

The first Dec. 12 chairmanship vote ended in another 4-4 decision along party lines. It also was opening for O'Neill to put her name forward for nomination.

"Although I was the first to put my name out there to run, I then backed off to provide party unity and the opportunity to see if they could work it out and get a fifth vote," O'Neill said. "That didn't look like it was happening, and it was becoming very difficult for the board to function effectively.

"So I said, with the encouragement of a lot of people who expected me to run from the very beginning, `Let me put my name forward, and maybe we can get some movement.' It was just a matter of trying to get some movement and apparently it worked."

Bernstein then motioned reopen chairmanship nominations. This passed by a 6-2 margin, with Sherr and von Braun opposing that measure.

Bernstein then nominated O'Neill -- a move that surprised Sherr. "Neither Barbara nor Peter Bernstein gave me any indication that they were working on an alternate plan and that they had withdrawn support for my candidacy," Sherr said. "I had no reason to think otherwise."

O'Neill confirmed Bernstein was the only board member she informed before Dec. 12 of her interest in being nominated.

The last deadlocked vote also precipitated Ospina's withdrawal.

In the only vote between O'Neill and Sherr, O'Neill prevailed by a 6-2 margin. Sherr and von Braun voted for Sherr.

"Peter had not taken on a leadership position on the board, while Barbara had been vice chair for two years," Ospina said of her vote for O'Neill. "I knew Peter didn't have enough votes, and I didn't want to go through another round of inconclusive voting. We wanted to support the candidate who had enough support to be elected."

Democrat Jennifer Dayton attributed her support to O'Neill to her past agreement with her on "funding priorities."

Appelbaum said she would have supported Sherr as vice chairman. "I have enjoyed getting to know Peter better over the past few weeks," she said in an email. "It has always been my contention that he would have made a very good vice chair with Adriana as chair, but I was not comfortable with him assuming the chair role at this time. I know Barbara will work very hard in her role as chair and hope she will be as inclusive a leader as she has said she intends to be."

MOVING AHEAD

With its leadership settled for the next year, board members will continue to focus on major issues such as racial imbalance, building use, academic achievement and digital learning that have dominated their agenda during the last year. And many are hoping they will do so in a more collegial manner.

"The current (school board) composition is fractured, and I hope it will solidify over time for the benefit of our students and taxpayers," Tesei said. "I congratulate Barbara on becoming chair and will work with her as I have several previous chairs."

The new chairman has called upon the board to take a collaborative approach. "All of us were elected to the Board of Education to work together productively in the best interests of Greenwich schools and students," she said. "That is both my commitment as chair to my fellow members, and it is also my expectation of each member of the board."

The chairmanship resolution also leaves two of the saga's three protagonists without officer positions. But Sherr and Ospina have pledged to work cooperatively. "We have a new board, and we have new leaders," Sherr said. "I think we'll all do our best to make something good come out of it."

Ospina expressed a similar viewpoint.

"Now that the election of officers is over, I will do everything I can to continue working with other board members to advance the goals of the district," she added. "We vote, and we move on."